Gun Control, who's for it?

Great post Antonio. It seems that those who are against guns have never benn in a situation where they needed one and either did or didn't have gun.

Here's an article from Ohio. They overturned a Governors veto of gun control.

The Wednesday Dispatch article "Local gun laws fall as veto is rejected," on the legislature’s override of Gov. Bob Taft’s veto of House Bill 347, makes an excellent case for why we don’t simply scrap our representative government and decide all public policy by means of polling. People who have no particular personal stake or interest in an issue are highly manipulable by media sound bites and meaningless emotional arguments.

Pollsters should take the time to ask some serious probing questions, such as, "How likely do you think a guncontrol law is to stop a career criminal whose life revolves around robbery, murder or drug peddling from using a prohibited gun?"

People who never give any deep thought to the issue are likely to answer superficial poll questions out of pure emotion or attitudes they have assimilated by listening to the biased mainstream media’s constant drumbeat against guns. Any person who gives serious thought to the gun issue would realize that gun laws restrict only lawabiding citizens’ access to weapons they could use to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Since men such as Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman are assumed to be of above-average intelligence, I can conclude only that their constantly equating gun ownership by their most law-abiding citizens with a threat to public safety is purely political and intellectual dishonesty. The real threat to public safety is not allowing law-abiding people the means to protect themselves. An additional point worth noting is that Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, has committed a cardinal sin for any pollster, injecting his own apparent political opinions into the results of the poll.

He engaged in a great leap of logic when he said, "There is clear consensus that Ohioans don’t want to relax current gun-control laws and don’t want to roll back the tougher laws passed by some cities."

That is an incredible conclusion to reach on the basis of 46 percent of respondents in his poll answering that Ohio’s laws are about right and indicates Quinnipiac’s own bias.

The bottom line is that no gun-control law ever has served to reduce crime, and this should be pointed out to people before they answer poll question on this controversial issue.

MARK WINTERS


Way to go Ohio!!!!!!!

Not true, crimes involving guns are very rare in the UK, where handguns are not allowed. I dont know if this is the case in Canada, which has similar controls on handguns. The fact is that most "illegal" handguns in the hands of criminals have their source in thefts from the homes of "legal" gun owners.

Interesting "fact". Would you please provide a reference to document it?

According to the BBC, crimes of violence have been increasing significantly in the U.K. A 2004 article on the BBC's website reported a 14% increase in violent crimes in a single year. "Offences of violence against the person rose 17%, serious violence such as killings were up 18%, and serious wounding and sexual offences rose 8%."

During the year reported, the BBC article noted a 34% reduction in gun crimes, but a 46% increase in crimes involving imitation guns. Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/d/

A bit more recently (September 2005), an article in Times Online noted that Scotland is the most violent nation in the developed world, with a per capita assault rate that is three times that of the United States. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-...1786945,00.html

"The study, by the UN’s crime research institute, found that 3 per cent of Scots had been victims of assault compared with 1.2 per cent in America and just 0.1 per cent in Japan, 0.2 per cent in Italy and 0.8 per cent in Austria. In England and Wales the figure was 2.8 per cent."

Apparently in the U.K., knives, swords, ice picks, screw drivers, rocks and common household items have taken the place of firearms as tools of choice in the hands of the violent.

Swanny

Not surprising, since the Scotts are even more violent than the Irish. I ascribe this to the fact that the Irish are usually too drunk to fight.

By the way, Swanny. I feel gratified that I was able to draw blood with that one.

It's distressing. isn't it?

The Scotsman has been covering this issue periodically. The biggest violence escalation in Scotland recently is as you mention, Swanny, not gun violence, it's knives and other blades (even swords). Bears some interpretation, perhaps -- throwback nationalism, to when the claymore was kingmaker? Or just easier to get hold of, and quieter.

I "stumbled onto this thread" and I have strong feelings re: the matter. I promoted "OFCC" and Buckeye Firearms untill the concealed cary law was passed in Ohio and I am still working to iron out the "wrinkles" in the law. A lot of people read the various ammendments, including the second, and make their decision as to the meaning. To truly understand what our forefathers intended, one needs to read the "Federalist Papers". The founding fathers had a deep fear of Government. Instead of a strong central government (which we now have and what they left Europe to get away from) In reading the Constitution I believe you will find that there 23 instances where the government is prohibited from involvment. There are a small number of powers granted to the Federal
Government. All other powers (which are most) are to lie with the states. That is no longer the case. All Federal electees swear in their oath of office to"uphold the Constitution of the United States of America and to defend it against ALL enemies both foriegn and domestic." What happened? the government was to be "of the people, by the people and for the people." Our "representatives were supposed to serve in Washington for a specified period of time then return home and another citizen would do his patriotic duty. We now have "professional" politicians. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "once the public finds that it can vote itself lagress from the public treasury, the Republic is lost!" Look around you! It is frightening! I fear we have left our children and grandchildren nothing.

This is all very true. It's sad that a lot of people don't realize this or try to say it doesn't mean what it says. SOme people have told me that the 2nd amendment doesn't grant us the right to bear arms. But in what I believe to be 45 state constitutions, it says it clear as day. Here in Florida it says it clear as day that we have the right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves. I don't think the fed can touch that one. OHHH! I'm sure some of the cronnies would love to. Feinstein, and Pelosi are to name just 2.

So swanny is that if the law abiding citizen isn't allowed to have a gun, then the bad guys can't get the guns? That is ridicules! Illegal drugs still make it across the border. As in England. Guns still make it into the wrong hands.

Yes. Violence is everywhere. It's not going away either.

Second Amendment is worth protecting
Back in the 1990s some 80 people were murdered in New York City. It only took one man to commit these murders.
His weapon — a gallon of gasoline.
This was the "Happyland" club fire, and he was able to commit this crime because his victims were disarmed and defenseless. Who disarmed all these victims? The New York politicians.
If the victims at Foxy Lady had only had some small "Saturday Nite Specials" on their persons, they could have immediately opened fire on their attacker and maybe have stopped the murders.
Disarmed and defenseless victims cannot do this.
Many confused people believe that only the military and police should have guns. Remember the two military attacks on the White House by military persons, one in a plane and the other in a helicopter?
How about the New Bedford police selling drugs out of their cars while off duty?
Should we get rid of the military and New Bedford police based on these crimes?
Always remember, the Second Amendment acknowledges an unalienable right of the People, not of the "militia" or the "State," for artificial entities like the militia or state do NOT have unalienable rights.
Show me where in the Constitution it allows for the creation of a "police department"?
The U.S. Supreme Court in South V Maryland, 59 US 396, as cited by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, tells every American, the police are NOT responsible for your safety.
You cannot sue the police if you are a victim of crime that the police could have even prevented!
If the police are not mandated to protect you, you are lawfully acknowledged to be able to protect yourself.
Those who cannot protect you, cannot allow you to be disarmed and defenseless either.


This is something I whole heartily believe in. I still can't understand why politicians from both side think taking guns from citizens is the answer.

So swanny is that if the law abiding citizen isn't allowed to have a gun, then the bad guys can't get the guns? That is ridicules! Illegal drugs still make it across the border. As in England. Guns still make it into the wrong hands.

???

I'm not sure I understand your question, Nova. I was asking Maisky to provide documentation for his alleged "fact", which he has not yet done. It may be intuitive to think that most "illegal" firearms were stolen from private residences, but I'm not willing to accept "intuitive" at face value.

So swanny is that if the law abiding citizen isn't allowed to have a gun, then the bad guys can't get the guns? That is ridicules! Illegal drugs still make it across the border. As in England. Guns still make it into the wrong hands.

???

I'm not sure I understand your question, Nova. I was asking Maisky to provide documentation for his alleged "fact", which he has not yet done. It may be intuitive to think that most "illegal" firearms were stolen from private residences, but I'm not willing to accept "intuitive" at face value.

I was asking him if he thinks the solution is to remove the guns from private citizens so the bad guys can't steel the gun and use it. It sure sounded like that was what was implied.

Oh also Swanny, Bro. Maisky has been asked to provide documentation before but never seems to come up with it. I don't know why.

Why would I quote sources you wont belive? It's like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.